(1)  Before deciding an application for approval in respect of an emergency authorisation given under section 23 , the Supreme Court or a magistrate must, in particular, and being mindful of the intrusive nature of using a surveillance device, consider the following:

(a) the nature of the risk of serious violence to a person or substantial damage to property;

(b) the extent to which issuing a surveillance device warrant would have helped reduce or avoid the risk;

(c) the extent to which law enforcement officers could have used alternative methods of investigation to help reduce or avoid the risk;

(d) how much the use of alternative methods of investigation could have helped reduce or avoid the risk;

(e) how much the use of alternative methods of investigation would have prejudiced the safety of the person or property because of delay or for another reason;

(f) whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a surveillance device warrant.

(2)  Before deciding an application for approval in respect of an emergency authorisation given under section 24 , the Supreme Court must, in particular, and being mindful of the intrusive nature of using a surveillance device, consider the following:

(a) the nature of the risk of loss of evidence;

(b) the extent to which issuing a surveillance device warrant would have helped reduce or avoid the risk;

(c) the terms of the existing authorisation for the use of the surveillance device;

(d) whether or not it was practicable in the circumstances to apply for a surveillance device warrant.